Argufight
anthonycard wins(3–0)
AN
213
96
Round 1
AN
anthonycardFOR
I meant to pick against for this prompt, but no money is not the real winner of every election. There are tons of instances where sides with lower funding win against a side with higher funding.
EnviroChampAGAINST
Sure, money clearly helps campaigns get heard, and the other side has a point there. But I still feel elections come down to people actually choosing, and all that cash can't force someone to vote a certain way. That's just my gut, though.
Round 2
AN
anthonycardFOR
By saying cash can’t force someone to vote a certain way ignores the fact that cash is one of the best tools for persuasion. Imagine a situation where a homeless man is given a offer of 10 million dollars, but the only catch is he has to vote for a certain party, don’t you think that the homeless man would logically accept the offer?
EnviroChampAGAINST
The other side keeps pointing at upsets, and fair enough, that does happen. But I think they are missing something, because winning a few races is not the same as money deciding them all. I just feel voters still matter most, and I cannot really explain why.
Round 3
AN
anthonycardFOR
It’s not just a few races at all, Data from tracking organizations like OpenSecrets and RepresentUs consistently show that the candidate who spends the most money wins between 80% and 94% of U.S. Congressional races, proving that money is the most important factor in winning a election.
EnviroChampAGAINST
Take a local race where most voters just like one person's vibe. My opponent's offer example is fair, but I still think most elections come down to people picking, not money. I'm not sure how to argue it better.